Back to our 'big ship' discussion Bruce Johnson (21 Oct 2014 00:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Greg Caires (21 Oct 2014 02:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Craig Berry (21 Oct 2014 02:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Evyn MacDude (21 Oct 2014 03:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Phil Pugliese (21 Oct 2014 08:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Grimmund (21 Oct 2014 12:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Phil Pugliese (21 Oct 2014 15:15 UTC)

Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Phil Pugliese 21 Oct 2014 08:55 UTC

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10/20/14, Evyn MacDude <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Monday, October 20, 2014, 8:18 PM

 On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at
 5:05 PM, Bruce Johnson
 <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
 wrote:
 > Some real-world news, Maesk has
 commissioned 20 'biggest ships in the world' capable
 of carrying 18,000 standard 20-foot containers each <http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/20/010252/the-largest-ship-in-the-world-is-being-built-in-korea>
 >
 > That's 42KdT of
 cargo alone ...

 Remember
 they will be on J3+ routes only, as there are only a few
 ports in the world that can support Triple
 E's (18 all told half in
 asia the other
 half in Europe)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So they can't come to North America at all!

======================================================